aussie reports on afghanistan

[Toad]

Makes ya wanna puke, doesn't it?

See, I'm the type that would have volunteered. Wouldn't have beached if Clinton sent my kids.

That Rwanda thing........ nearly a MILLION people........ and the world sat on it's hands. A MILLION.

Would that it was only Rwanda; but it wasn't, isn't and apparently never will be.

Sudan's only at 30K so they say; wonder how far they'll run up the score against no opposition?

The UN does what?

NM, I know.

[demaw1]

SUDAN IN LAST TEN YEARS IS NEAR 1 MILLION

[Pei]

The UN is only as good as it's member states so it thye who must bear the blame, especially the one on the SC and most especially the permanent members.
Last time I checked the US was one of those permanent members.

It's no good blaming the UN as if it is entirely seperate to the US because it's not. Blame the UN and you blame the US as well.  It's not as if the US was any different to the UK, France, Russia etc. in failing to do anything about Rwanda or at the present time Sudan.


As to Afghanistan it may not have been popular with the Muslim world and the far left but every reasonable nation recognized that the US had a genuine causus belli.  It was Iraq that divided world opinion and split the SC, for right or wrong.  The causus belli for Iraq was much less clear and much less emotive, whatever the long term benefit that may accrue from it.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by Rude
Perhaps you prefer the 800,000 Africans slaughtered while the UN sat around and sipped cherry and smoked cigars....of course, loss of life would have been necessary to quell that atrosity now wouldn't it?


Bottom line....folks like me will be dying for years and years to come to save the likes of you...your welcome.

OK, non sequitur upon non sequitur...

So can we just clarify - do you think MSF leaving Afghanistan is a good thing or a bad thing?

Now onto the new non sequitur

IIRC the US did not go into Afghanistan as part of a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission. There was no civil war to stop, no slaughter going on in Afghanistan. They went in for a regime change and to take out al qaeda. Whether you agree with the US's reasons or not (I agree, but think the US was a little short-sighted in going for regime change, as it may have caused more problems than it solved), you cannot deny that the US going in caused more civilian deaths in Afghanistan than not going in. You can justify these casualties but you can't deny they happened, or that they wouldn't have if the US had not gone in.

So what does Africa have to do with it? Or the UN? And really your example just begs the question - so why hasn't the US gone to stop these killings? I wasn't going to ask, nor do I particularly blame the US for not doing so - it's clearly not in their interest and right now they may not really have the manpower for it - but this African question isn't my high horse: I am intrigued, though. So why, in your opinion, has the US sat around and "sipped cherry and smoked cigars" while 800,000 Africans were slaughtered?

That aside you really seem to have missed the point a bit - my original contention is that Afghanistan isn't all good news. In fact some of it is very bad news. MSF leaving is, in my opinion, bad news, and it may have a serious knock-on effect.

Perhaps the most curious thing is why you, as a complicated-minded man who does not "believe that like a movie, this should all be easy and without sacrifice" are trying to downplay the bad news? After all, there's bound to some difficulties, eh? Nothing to be ashamed of, surely?

BTW do please let me know when you've died to save me, and I'll send some flowers. You're welcome too.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, we should have just hid under our fugging beds after 9/11 and let 'em be.

     Now now Rip, maybe we should have just asked the french for
permission first

[Toad]

Originally posted by Pei
It's not as if the US was any different to the UK, France, Russia etc. in failing to do anything about Rwanda or at the present time Sudan.
 

Disagree.

U.S. wants Sudan militias disarmed

...The United States had pressed for sanctions, but after opposition from some countries on the 15-member Security Council, U.S. officials deleted the word "sanctions" from the draft resolution Thursday...

Once again, "some countries" are for no action, no resolutions that promise consequences. The US isn't one of those wrt Sudan, however.

Now I'm guessing there'd be another world uproar if we unilaterally went in there and disarmed them.

Not that we could do it now anyway, of course. Point is we are rebuked for acting unilaterally but otoh none will act at all.